The progressive Jewish lobbying group J Street has published the results of a new nationwide poll it conducted of Jewish Americans between February 28 and March 8.
The poll had some encouraging results. J Street’s own press release about it highlighted the following findings:
- * American Jews remain remarkably supportive of assertive American efforts to achieve Middle East peace. The poll finds an extraordinarily strong base of 69 percent of American Jews firmly supporting active American engagement in bringing about Middle East peace, even if it means publicly disagreeing with or exerting pressure on both Arabs and Israelis, compared to 66 percent eight months ago;
* 69 percent also support the U.S. working with a unified Hamas-Fatah Palestinian Authority government to achieve a peace agreement with Israel, even when informed that the U.S. does not recognize Hamas due to its status as a terrorist organization and its refusal to recognize Israel. Interestingly, a March poll conducted by the Truman Institute at Hebrew University reported that 69 percent of Israelis also think Israel should negotiate with a joint Hamas-Fatah government;
* By 76-24 percent, American Jews support a two-state, final status deal between Israel and the Palestinians along the lines of the agreement nearly reached eight years ago during the Camp David and Taba talks;
* On Avigdor Lieberman: When told about Lieberman’s campaign platform requiring Arab citizens of Israel to sign loyalty oaths, as well as his threats against Arab Members of Knesset, American Jews opposed these positions by a 69 to 31 margin. One in three believe their own connection to Israel will be diminished if Lieberman assumes a senior position in the Israeli cabinet.
* On Gaza: While Jews rallied behind Israel and approved of Israel’s military action by a 3 to 1 margin, 59 percent still felt that the military action had no impact on Israel’s security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent), while only 41 percent felt it made Israel more secure.
To me, the second of these findings is the most significant. It means that if Obama and his envoy sen. Mitchell move quickly and surefootedly toward including Hamas in the search for calming, de-escalation, and a speedy final resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, he can expect to rally significant support for this approach from within the US Jewish community.
Of course, an inclusive policy such as this could also be expected to arouse the ire of most of the old hard-line organizations that like to portray themselves as representatives of the “mainstream” US Jewish community. But guess what. The “main” stream has been trickling out of its old tired stream-bed for some time now and carving out its own much more principled and humane way of looking at Middle east peace issues.
Also highly relevant in this context: The notably positive tone of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal’s recent statements about Pres. Obama— as reported here.
I have the full text of that interview bookmarked someplace. But it is also significant that it’s being featured in that way on the pro-Hamas PIC website today.
In fact Meshaal’s reactions to Obama are much warmer than those of Iranian Supreme Guide Khamene’i.
(Some people believe– and argue– that Meshaal, being based in Damascus, is more hardline than the Hamas leaders on the ground inside Gaza or the West Bank. This is absolutely not true. In some respects he is more ready to be politically flexible than they are. Plus, he is the overall leader and inside the organization his word is the gold standard.)
Helena,
You write: “It means that if Obama and his envoy sen. Mitchell move quickly and surefootedly toward including Hamas in the search for calming, de-escalation, and a speedy final resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, he can expect to rally significant support for this approach from within the US Jewish community.”
I think you may be way, way out in front of what the data show. Note that the question was directed towards a unified government that includes both Hamas and Fatah and is not directed to engaging with Hamas by itself. And, presumably the question assumes that such government would accept previous commitments, etc., etc. Even if that is not so, as the question is actually worded, I am also enthusiastically with the majority. But, not as you want to change it.
You also speak of more humane ways of looking at the dispute. Is Hamas – the Islamist party in Palestine – really a humane force, Helena? Or, is it one of the forces which is undermining the Arab regions, driving it backwards? Apart from getting those metaphoric trains to run on time, what good do you see in Islamism or Hamas? What sort of life does Hamas offer for homosexuals? for women? for non-Muslims under “the wing of Islam”?
How someone who claims to want peace sides with the most backwards, violent, illiberal and barbaric force in the Muslim regions is beyond me.
Based on that poll it appears our resident hasbara crowd and whoever feeds them their talking points are more outside the mainstream than ever before.
J Street is a radical progressive group.
When you abandon your own identity in an effort to be accepted, it can be pretty scary to realize that you gave up what really matters for nothing.
Winston Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
“J Street is a radical progressive group”
LOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh, James, you ARE a comedian, aren’t you?
Or is the applicable word “clown”.
Oh c’meon N., what’s with the ridiculous hyperbole? The most backwards, violent, illiberal and barbaric force in the Muslim regions— Hamas??
Um, have you ever heard of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban?
Hamas has positions on social issues like the inclusion of women and the need for equal rights for non-Muslims that is exponentially more liberal than those of Qaeda or the Taliban. Hamas has women MPs. It has always, since the earliest days of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s organizing, supported good education for women and the importance of women’s work both inside and outside the home.
With ridiculous statements like the one you just made, you’re betraying your own ignorance more than anything.
Yes, of course I would wish Hamas’s position on some of these issues was more liberal than it is. I would wish the same, by the way for religious parties in Israel like Shas. (How many female MPs does Shas have, anyway?) But does the fact of these parties’ lack of liberalism disqualify them completely from political inclusion? Get real.
These “progressive” Jews only reinforce my observation that these people are clinically insane; we appear to have on our hands, a substantial number of well-educated loonies.
Helena,
Hamas is using women as human shield.
How about the 72 virgins for Shahids? 🙂
How about the Hamas charter?
Nice to see that the story on Israeli troops’ tee shirts about killing Arabs made its way out to Yahoo News. It had appeared headed for rapid and planned obscurity. A story like that shouldn’t be buried.
Headline: Israeli soldiers’ T-shirts depict shooting Arabs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_army;_ylt=Apw8GJ1fQHwa1Z90qF.h4OVvaA8F
Helena,
Could you please tell me what you think about this text ? Is it antisemitic (I don’t think so but would like your opinion on it…) ?
Gilad Atzmon – War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/18/gilad-atzmon-%E2%80%93-war-on-terror-within-the-end-of-jewish-history/
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Helena,
Your comment confuses my comments about Hamas in particular with Islamism in general. My comment that you jumped on was, in fact, about Islamism. It is, to repeat, “the most backwards, violent, illiberal and barbaric force in the Muslim regions.” I stand by that.
And, with Hamas being an Islamist group, I also see them as a major backwards, violent, illiberal and barbaric force in the Muslim regions. I stand by that as well.
I am awestruck that you see anything about Hamas as anything other than a radical step backwards. That, to me, requires having your eyes wide shut. Hamas may have women legislators but, for average women, they are a disaster.
My take on this: everything that matters about Hamas can be discerned from the Hamas covenant. They do not support “equal rights for non-Muslims.” They support non-Muslims living “under the wing of Islam,” to quote the covenant. And, since coming to power in Gaza, church bells have gone quiet. As reported in the BBC:
Now there is progress for you. That is reminiscent of the world in the 18th Century Ottoman Empire.
“It means that if Obama and his envoy sen. Mitchell move quickly and surefootedly toward including Hamas in the search for calming, de-escalation, and a speedy final resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, he can expect to rally significant support for this approach from within the US Jewish community.”
What it means, Helena, is that if Hamas recognises Israel, renounces violence and agrees to honor all PA committments, then movement towards the two independent states living side by side will be greatly accelerated AND WILL BE BACKED BY THE ISRAELI PEOPLE.
Why do you not call on Hamas to do this?
To me, the second of these findings is the most significant. It means that if Obama and his envoy sen. Mitchell move quickly and surefootedly toward including Hamas in the search for calming, de-escalation, and a speedy final resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, he can expect to rally significant support for this approach from within the US Jewish community.
But isn’t that backwards? Won’t it require significant support from within the US Jewish community for Sen. Mitchell to move quickly and surefootedly toward including Hamas in the search for de-escalation and a final resolution of the Israel-Palestine “conflict”?
To me the last of these findings is the most significant:
On Gaza: While Jews rallied behind Israel and approved of Israel’s military action by a 3 to 1 margin, 59 percent still felt that the military action had no impact on Israel’s security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent), while only 41 percent felt it made Israel more secure.
That says that even though American Jews think Israel’s invasion of Gaza was was unjustified and unrelated to Israel’s security they still circle the wagons in support of their own cherished sin against the judgment of “outsiders”.
Hamas a “radical step backward” from what, pray?
N. Friedman, you give no evidence of having any respect for the Palestinians or for the Palestinian women who in fact provided the backbone of Hamas’s electoral support… and for a host of reasons that from their perspective were sound ones.
Why do you persist in asserting that you– from your very different perspective and your very different circumstances so many thousands of miles away– somehow know what is best for Palestinian women?
Your arrogance, your ignorance about the concerns of actual Palestinian women (and men), and your complete dismissal of the feelings and concerns of Palestinian women and men are all, alike, simply breath-taking for someone who pretends to “care about” others.
You simply make your ignorant and frequently defamatory assertions here, and make no attempt to reference the demonstrated preferences of real-life Palestinian women and men in any way. Why should anyone pay any heed to these assertions of your own personal prejudices on matters regarding which you have demonstrated zero actual understanding or familiarity? Why should I continue to give web-space to your ideological, unsubstantiated, and anti-humane rantings here?
BB, I call on all sides to give full recognition to each other’s legitimate rights and concerns and to commit to the non-use of violence. Any such calls must be even-handed if they are to have any moral or political weight at all. Calling on one side only to make such a commitment upfront is a clearly sly political ploy.
Why do you persist in asserting that you– from your very different perspective and your very different circumstances so many thousands of miles away– somehow know what is best for Palestinian women?
From what I can tell, you are neither Palestinian nor do you live in Palestine but “so many thousands of miles away….” I think that the only thing that gives you some perspective is the fact that you are a woman. But then so are roughly 50% of humanity! The arrogance.
Helena,
Are you kidding me?
Wife beating, physical and mental abuse, arranged marriage,veiling, beheading, separatism, and honor-related violence, including honor killings are exremely common in Islam.
In Islam the woman is the property of a man, to do with what he pleases.
Helena,
The progressive Jewish lobbying group J Street ……..a new nationwide poll it conducted of Jewish Americans
Its rather useful if the poll telling how many Zionists believers between the groups.
This very important matter here and should be peer in mind when talking about Jewish and Israel matters.
Btw, James….. There is no sorry to you if a crocodile, eat you FIRST….not last.
You need to shut up of your hate mongering and stupid thoughts by judging Islam by some criminals using Islam as your ilk in dark ages did with Christianity.
I particularly liked this one:
On Avigdor Lieberman: When told about Lieberman’s campaign platform requiring Arab citizens of Israel to sign loyalty oaths, as well as his threats against Arab Members of Knesset, American Jews opposed these positions by a 69 to 31 margin. One in three believe their own connection to Israel will be diminished if Lieberman assumes a senior position in the Israeli cabinet.
First of all, nowhere in his platform or in his campaign did Lieberman specify that Arab citizens of Israel sign loyalty oaths. His campaign slogan was “No Loyalty. No Citizenship.” without being specific. For example, this could also apply to haredis who are not only not Zionists, but who, for the most part, do not serve in the army. That said, it would be interesting to see exactly how “J Street” pollsters worded the question.
(As another point of interest, the only items in the Yisrael Beitaynu platform that Lieberman demanded were the implementation of civil marriage and the “Norweigan Law” that would require cabinet ministers to relinquish their Knesset seats, thereby preventing the appointment of political hacks. He has not insisted on implementing his “No Loyalty. No Citizenship.” modification, whatever that is.”
Another point of interest is that, while 69% of American Jews can’t see supporting Lieberman, 88% of Israelis did not vote for Lieberman in the elections.
Now there is progress for you. That is reminiscent of the world in the 18th Century Ottoman Empire. – N. Friedman
So the Muslim call to prayer is allowed in every mosque in the US, is it? It certainly is not here in France, or in Britain, my home country. Or in Germany, as I remember.
So evidently, western Europe and the US are back in the dark ages, according to your logic, N. Friedman. You might at least think out what you are saying.
“That is reminiscent of the world in the 18th Century Ottoman Empire.”
And you know about that world, how? Because you were there? Or because you heard some stuff about it from someone who also was not there?
And you were there, Shirin? I’m not sure what your point is.
*Zionism is the problem*
The Zionist ideal of a Jewish state is keeping Israelis and Palestinians
from living in peace.
By Ben Ehrenreich
Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2009
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of the novel “The Suitors.”
Well JES your point is, if you have a point and far be it from me to suggest you have one, seems to be that Shirin has no greater knowledege of the ME than an outright fool, namely your 24/7 garbage posting buddy and apparent bosom buddy NF.
I mean facts don’t matter right? Hell we can even verbally deform Goggle maps here right? Anything for the cause and stuff the truth? Hey where can I buy your funky IDF T shirts man, just so like any decent human being I can burn them?
N Friedman,
How long have you been posting here? Why is it that you consistently disagree with EVERY point that Ms. Cobban makes? In fact, I don’t think I’ve seen a single post on this blog over the past month or so that you did not comment on.
Are you one of those blog commenters that the Israeli Absorbtion Ministry recruited right after the end of hostilities in Gaza to spread the word about how great Israel is on ‘problematic’ blogs and online community sites that dare to criticize Israeli policy?
Read about this “army of bloggers” here.
I think you are.
Gee Roland, you really are deep. And your point is? Sheesh.
Hizbullah spends millions to rebuild southern suburbs
The deafening explosions of Israeli bombs have been replaced by the grinding cacophony of earth-movers and cement mixers contracted to rebuild 241 of the 282 buildings destroyed in the bombing.
The project, dubbed Waad (pledge in Arabic), has won the heart of Hassoun but has also raised a storm of political dust between Hizbullah and the government, whose authority in the southern suburbs has lagged for decades.
Both Waad and Jihad For Reconstruction are on a US list of “terrorist” organizations.
This is what Hamas could be doing in Gaza if it were not for the US/Israel. It’s no wonder that Waad, Hizbullah, and Hamas strike terror into the hearts of real terrorists, like the US and Israel. All the US/Israel can do anymore is destroy things.
I remember when I was young, and the US was known for its “can do” attitude and the “power of positive thinking”. Israel’s Kubbutzim used to evoke the admiration of everyone, except the people whose lands they stole to form their communities.
No the US/Israel Axis is one of death and destruction. The only thing they can make anymore are cluster bombs, nuclear weapons, and horrific new science-fiction war machines.
No one is going to mourn the passing of American hegemony, and no one is going to miss it more than the Israelis when they’re left out in the cold amongst the neighbors they’ve murdered, dispossessed, and terrorized for so long.
Maybe both countries ought to project a future based on where they actually are now?
Nah! They’re both going for the Samson “solution”. It’s like suicide-by-cop only on a national scale.
Not for me! I’ll die on my own thanks.
More people need to look look out for their lives. The Jim Jones/Jamestown model is not really so appealing.
I think you nailed it faylasoof.
“We are in the process of thinking how to utilize these volunteers not only during conflict, but also during regular times as well.”
For Israelis there is no difference between times of conflict and “regular times”. And don’t their poor neighbors know that only too well!
I’ll bet the “volunteers” are well provided for… with US treasury funds. Right N? JES?
Helena,
My apology for the length of this reply.
You claim that I have no evidence for my position. Maybe.
As I said, the most telling evidence about Hamas and its intentions is the Hamas covenant. It explains pretty clearly what Hamas’ leadership has in mind and where it is going. In any event, they aim to make religion the center piece of society and of politics and of everything else. And, they do seem to be marching their society in that direction. Maybe that is progressive to your way of thinking. To me, it is a major, major step backwards. It all, of course, depends on what you deem as progress.
Evidently, the suppression of Christians in Gaza does not bother you, nor does the attack on the YMCA [BBC News, February 15, 2008]. Evidently, the increased use of the veil – often involuntary – for women does not bother you either. Nor, evidently, does the closing of cafes. Regarding women’s rights, AWID sees problems under Hamas. On July 9, 2007, the group wrote:
Moreover:
[Emphasis added by NF.]
Of course, it all depends on what you define progress as.
N., I have said that I wish Hamas was more liberal, but I also strongly protested against your characterization of it in your original comment as “the most backwards, violent, illiberal and barbaric force in the Muslim regions.”
And yes, the antecedent to that description in the text of your original comment clearly was “Hamas – the Islamist party in Palestine” and NOT, as you later tried to claim, “Islamism” in general.
Hamas certainly is not “the most backwards, violent, illiberal and barbaric force in the Muslim regions.”
Also, Hamas is far from being the only “armed religious group” in Gaza and the rest of Palestine, as your phrase “Hamas – THE Islamist party in Palestine” would clearly imply, and as is, presumably, the assumption under which you think that the bolded section you picked out in your latest comment is relevant to a discussion of Hamas at all.
Hamas is far from the only Islamist organization in Gaza that has a military wing; and of the armed Islamist organizations in Gaza it is clearly the most moderate. If you want to learn something useful about the political situation in Gaza, go and read some of the reports the Crisis Group has published about it over the past few years. (Portal at the bottom of this page.)
And now, you’ve produced your evidence and we’ve all had a chance to evaluate it, let’s end this discussion on Hamas which is, after all, majorly off the main topic of this post.
Helena,
Of course, I shall abide by your request to stay on topic. I shall, in addition, examine the materials to which you have graciously provided a link.
Turning to the topic of the original post, your initial contention conflates the desire by Jews to settle the dispute with the notion that Jews think that Hamas, standing alone, could be part of the solution. To me, that conflation is an extraordinary misconception.
I think that perceptions about Hamas and Islamism color how Jews perceive the dispute. You evidently do not see that point, perhaps, to judge by your comments on this board (and maybe I misunderstand what you have written), because you do not see Hamas as being such a backward, retrograde force – everything is relative, no doubt – so you assume that most Jews likely see things as you do. If that is what you think, I can assure you that you are seriously mistaken.
Be that as it may, on what basis do you read your position from the evidence you post? I do not see it.
During a recent visit to several university campuses in the U.S. , I discovered that there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah. Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment Ithought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber. … (Read the rest of this sock-puppeted comment here. ~HC)
This isn’t about a “Palestinian” state. It is about getting rid of Israel. End of story. The “palestinians” are just as complicit in this atrocity as any member of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Israel could give up 99.9% of their land and these groups would still whine, moan, and groan at how Israel,keeps them down.
Khaled Abu Toameh,
Wow… someone with an arab sounding name and pretending to be journalist is speaking like a Likudnik … wow.. Isn’t there something truely bizzarre in this message ?
The ideological propaganda is there for all to see, so I won’t comment on the numerous “contre verite” present in your discourse
James fallaciously wrote :
Israel could give up 99.9% of their land and these groups would still whine, moan, and groan at how Israel,keeps them down.
Yeah.. and this is why Israel is creating more and more colonies in the West Bank and robbing Palestinian soil and building a wall encircling Palestinian ground and preventing their free moves in the POT. Every one looking at successive historical maps of the region can see what is going on the ground since 1967 : things are going exactly the other way around; Israel is trying to push the Palestinians out of their land. That’s the bare truth, so stop complaining about the Palestinian pretendiously trying to throw Israel to the sea, while the maps shows exactly the opposite.
Christiane,
Khaled Abu Toameh is an Arab, and a Palestinian and is indeed a journalist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Abu_Toameh
He just doesn’t follow the same party line that you do!
Whoever the person was who, from Atlanta, Georgia, sent in the comment supposedly from ‘Khaled Abu Toameh’ is asked not to repeat this childish act of sock-puppetry. I guess this, like the ‘Michael Totten’ business a couple weeks ago, is the use of a new tactic to jam up and divert the comments discussions here– by pasting in whole gobs of text from elsewhere on a topic vaguely related (or in this case, almost completely unrelated) to the main post.
A few seconds’ searching on the Intertubes reveals that the original of this text– but much better formated– was posted yesterday morning on the website of the rightwing organization the Hudson Institute. It almost immediately got picked up and republished in full by a number of rightwing bloggers.
Abu Toameh’s observations are faintly interesting– though my experiences on US campuses have been very different from what he reports. I also think he should disclose to readers who has been organizing and paying for his US campus tour… But whoever wanted to draw attention to his comments on JWN should have done so with the simple use of a hyperlink rather than by engaging in impersonation and discourse hogging on a broad scale.
Helena, have you ever gone to the trouble of interviewing Abu Toameh? And are you suggesting that he is “in the pocket” of those who financed his speaking trip? (BTW, who finances your trips to the region?)
…though my experiences on US campuses have been very different from what he reports.
But then you were, as they say, preaching to the choir, weren’t you. Not only is Abu Toameh an Arab and a Muslim, he is also an Israeli citizen who is not afraid (and has not been afraid) to criticize his fellow Palestinian.
What I found more than “faintly interesting” (the ultimate put-down from someone who, in contrast to Abu Toameh, gets here once a year and is an “expert”) is the following:
The bad news is that these groups of hard-line activists/thugs are trying to intimidate anyone who dares to say something that they don’t like to hear.
When the self-designated “pro-Palestinian” lobbyists are unable to challenge the facts presented by a speaker, they resort to verbal abuse.
How true of many commenters here who shall remain unnamed!
I am very happy to disclose who pays for my trips. I received some support for the most recent trip from ‘The Nation’, a well-established weekly publication based in NYC. That didn’t come close to covering my expenses, however, so I have self-financed and shall swallow the rest as a necessary business expense.
My trip to Damascus in January was paid for by Search for Common Ground, the DC-based conflict-resolution organization that sponsors the US-Syria Working Group, whose business I was on (on an otherwise completely pro-bono basis.)
Previous research and/or reporting trips have been paid for by a combination of self-financing with some grant monies including, over the years, some amounts from the US Institute of Peace (a federally funded body), the Foundation for Middle East Peace, etc. Luckily I do not seek to get rich from my work, and I have not done so.
I get these grants and/or travel support because the funding organizations respect the integrity and analytical quality of my work and NOT because they want to pursue any agenda other than a broad agenda of increasing public knowledge and– for some of them– identifying and strengthening the options for peaceful resolution of thorny issues. I have never had a funder dictate or even seek to steer the direction, focus, or content of my writing.
Also, JES, let me assure you my experience is very rarely one of ‘preaching to the choir.’
N., your arguments become ever more convoluted. I never said or implied that “Hamas, standing alone, could be part of the solution”– and I certainly never assumed that most Jewish Americans would agree with that assessment!
I said in the main post here, and have said elsewhere, that Hamas needs to be included in the search for a negotiated peace agreement. Nothing about it “standing alone”, Indeed, if you’ve actually read what I’ve written over months and years, I’ve consistently supported all efforts the Palestinians have made to sort out their internal differences and produce a unified leadership.
I don’t know why you persist in wilfully mis-stating what I write. Perhaps, rather than continually chiming in you’d do better to read the blog quietly and carefully without always feeling the need to dominate the comments boards. You might even learn a few things you didn’t know before.
I have never had a funder dictate or even seek to steer the direction, focus, or content of my writing.
And are you suggesting that Khaled Abu Toameh’s funders have?
Christiane,
First apologies if this out of topic here, but I found its interesting as far as Christiane brought historical event of Israelis here
Read this please:
The Essenes, Dead Sea Scroll ‘authors,’ never existed.
BTW, JES, before you asked Helena about her “who finances your trips to the region?)” You should tell us who behind those trips of US officials and US citizens and from around the world those invited to see and twisting historical fact about Palestine land make these and Megaphone for the Zionist / Israel looks as victim in ME?
Tell us about those youth who go and finances by groups you should know them who goes to camps and make believe they are (Solder of God) defending the Zionist state?
Tell us those who invited to Israel for those native people far from around the world who can find money to their families in that original land invited to Israel and spending time to be brain washed?
Put forward and straight we don’t have time to wasted with your and NF style he don’t know to understand his sentence putting back of into the mouth of others.
Lastly JES , NF who paid you to sparade Zionest history and facke facts about Palstians here and there?
Helena,
At no point over the course of the relatively short time during which I have been reading and posting on your blog have I ever ***willfully*** misrepresented anything. Please accept my apology for any error I may have made in interpreting what you wrote.
A linguistics professor/friend and colleague told me that the advantage of a conversation (i.e. advantage over merely reading an article or book) is that a conversation allows for correcting/clarifying understandings and misunderstandings. I do not have the benefit of knowing what is in your head and I have not been reading your website for many months on end such that I go based on the words in front of me. And, that means that plenty of mistakes will be made by me and everyone else here.
Please also note that this goes for the Hamas/Islamism confusion. I really did intend my comment to be about Islamism. I see how you thought I meant Hamas but, as my friend notes, the advantage of conversation is that mistakes can be corrected.
Again, my apology if I gave you the impression that I might be willfully misrepresenting your position.
“At no point over the course of the relatively short time during which I have been reading and posting on your blog have I ever ***willfully*** misrepresented anything.”
Then you need to read more carefully and think before you comment because you have not only misrepresented what Helena has written, you have repeatedly misrepresented what I and others have written, and you have even misrepresented what you yourself have previously written.
Not to mention that you have managed to misrepresent various sources.
Shirin,
That is rich coming from you, Shirin, who refused, notwithstanding my repeated requests, to stop calling me by someone else’s name. That, my friend, was your willful behavior.
I have also not misrepresented, so far as I know, any source. That is something, so far as I know, that you have made up.
Yes, I willfully called you Noah after Joshua, who appears to know you, did so. That is, of course, utterly irrelevant to your oft-noted tendency to misrepresent what others, and even you yourself, have said here.
Shirin,
I was attempting to distinguish that which is error from that which is willful. My mistakes are mistakes. I do not think I make all that many of them, certainly no more than you and, most likely, far fewer. And, I do not misrepresent my views. That is in your head.
In any event, it is time to give this topic a rest.
JES, re your question at 1:20 p.m. I wasn’t even thinking of Khaled Abu To’ameh when I wrote that but simply stating a fact about my own work.
I find N. Friedman’s position incomprehensible. The Hamas charter calls for the non-acceptance of the Israeli state. It does not call for the death of Jews. It is precisely similar to the Likud charter, which equally calls for non-acceptance of a Palestinian state. The one is in power in Gaza, the other is about to be in power in Israel.
As for Christians not being able to sound their bells in Gaza (even if it is true), Muslims in Jerusalem are not allowed to pray in their mosque (al-Aqsa), unless of more than 40 years of age. And that is apart from the interdiction on the call to prayer in Europe and the US, that I mentioned earlier.
So what is the difference? Why call one benighted and medieval, and the other modern?
Hamas is a religious party. There are equivalent religious parties in Israel. Even non-religious parties in Israel (Likud) have the same policies as Hamas. Hamas won the election. Likud, though not winning the election, will form the government with the help of the religious parties just mentioned..
Really, I fail to see that the one is better than the other.
It does not call for the death of Jews.
Actually Alex, it does cite a hadith which directly calls for the death of Jews:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
“”The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”
Is there some innocent explanation for why they stuck this in?
And this:
“Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.””
and this:
“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.”
Why do I feel like no one here but us hasbaristas has read the thing with any care?
Re Vadim
No, it does not say killing the Jews, that is an interpretation. Cite me the Arabic of Bukhari.
Alex the translation is from Yale law school, it isn’t mine, but I haven’t encountered so much as one English rendition that strays from this reading. If you think it’s wrong, please tell us how (a similar request on another thread was unfortunately ignored by our other Arabic experts).
the original is here:
http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/235FD81C-8749-4A35-A8D6-047EBA09866D.htm
Helena: re. your response at 04:53 PM yesterday to may question of 01:20 PM…
Do you honestly think that “The Nation” would have fundeded even part of your trip if it was not familiar with your agenda and with the likely results?
And regarding your initial question about Khaled Abu Toameh’s, was your question of 08:09 AM about Abu Toameh disclosing to readers the supposed sources of his funding simply rhetorical?
Alex,
‘Israel (Likud) have the same policies as Hamas.’
First, Likud doesn’t have a so-called “military wing,” which is how Hamas refers to its terrorist legion. It therefore doesn’t employ basement bombmakers and armchair rocket scientists, whose sole aim is to maximize civilian deaths. That’s a Hamas thing.
Second, the Likud Party certainly recognizes the Palestinians as a nationality, and has previously negotiated with the Palestinian leaders over territory, sovereignty and security arrangements. Lest it not be forgotten, it was a Likud government that ceded Hebron – the second holiest city in Judaism after Jerusalem – to the Palestinian Authority in 1997.
Third, the Likud Party has long declared its respect for previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. As it wrote in its 1999 platform, “Democratic governments honor accords signed by their predecessors.”
In short, Likud has far surpassed the very bare-bones standards that Hamas has long refused to – and probably never will – meet.
“Likud doesn’t have a so-called “military wing”
You are joking, right? Are you DAFT? They have one of the most powerful, deadly, and destructive militaries in the world as their military wing.
“it was a Likud government that ceded Hebron – the second holiest city in Judaism after Jerusalem – to the Palestinian Authority in 1997.”
LOOOOOOOL! And how has that worked out for the Palestinians who have been trying to live in Hebron?
“the Likud Party has long declared its respect for previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. As it wrote in its 1999 platform, ‘Democratic governments honor accords signed by their predecessors.’”
Now THERE’s a weasely-worded statement if we have ever heard one! And Israel’s history of honouring its own accords is not exactly sterling. In fact, it is not only the agreements of their predecessors that Israeli governments have not honoured. Israeli governments have ignored their own agreements.
But more to the point, I guess you missed the part where Hamas said it would abide by prior agreements. Of course, that is by far not all you have missed.
Shirin,
You write (with reference to this comment “Likud doesn’t have a so-called ‘military wing'”):
Evidently, you do not know the difference between the military of a nation and a political party’s militia. Likud does not have its own militia. Hamas does.